vel0city 3 days ago

They give potentially worse pricing on a lot of the basic things (egress bandwidth, basic VM hosting, storage pricing) because their real value-add are all the extra managed services they offer on top of those things, the scale they're able to offer, and the more enterprise features.

If you're using AWS/GCP/Azure to just host a couple of VMs for a small group you're massively overpaying.

pinkgolem 3 days ago

The last comparison I did was Hetzner offers 14x the performance per dollar

Not including the faster SSD & included traffic

unethical_ban 3 days ago

I haven't been professionally involved in AWS in some time, and never was involved in pricing.

Personally, the only thing I know of that is a true deal vs. competition is cold storage of data. Using the s3 glacier tiers for long term data that is saved solely for emergencies is really cheap, something like $1/100GB a month or less.

AWS is usually not the cheapest EVER when it comes to offerings like EC2. If you aren't doing cloud-native or serverless at AWS, you're probably spending too much.

  • direwolf20 3 days ago

    Glacier Deep Archive is around $1/TB/month. This is also about the good deal price for storage servers right now, although Glacier offers redundancy which storage servers don't.

direwolf20 3 days ago

Quite the opposite. They have mindshare lock–in and don't face competitive pressure to reduce prices. AWS boasts it never increased prices but it also never reduced them by much, even as hardware got an order of magnitude cheaper.

nicoburns 3 days ago

They might be if they were trying to compete on price. But my understanding is their margins are... healthy shall we say.

bombcar 3 days ago

They're selling all their capabilities; using them as a VPS is like using a battleship to cut cheese.

But if all you really do with cloud stuff is "ssh into a server I have" (which covers a ton!) then you'll find much cheaper/more performant elsewhere.

  • graemep 2 days ago

    > They're selling all their capabilities; using them as a VPS is like using a battleship to cut cheese.

    A lot of people do it.

    People feel the battleship is safe and familiar. For most businesses the extra cost is not even noticed. Even a small business spending $500/month on hosting instead of $50 is not going to notice.

    Also, if something goes wrong (e.g. your AWS region goes down) its far easier to explain to a manager or client that "its Amazon's fault and lots of stuff is down", rather than "its Digital Ocean's fault".

    • pinkgolem 2 days ago

      To be fair, i have never seen a business with a 500$ monthly cloud bill, AWS seems to start around 10k given or taken for a light production workload

      • graemep a day ago

        You have never seen a small business then. A local shop is not spending $10k to host their website. Lots of VPS hosts have products aimed at this market so it must he significant in aggregate.

        My point is small businesses tend to be owner managed and therefore more cost sensitive and the costs are still not a significant factor. AS businesses get bigger its even less significant and its other people's money.

        • pinkgolem a day ago

          A local business is not using AWS usually but shoppify or Odo or whatever hosting provider provides a management wp.

          And at least here in Germany, they are nickel an dimming on the hosting cost.

stephenr 3 days ago

AWS outbound data is as much as 75x the cost of eg Hetzner.

I view a large percentage of "cloud" usage like Teslas stock price: it's completely detached from reality by people who have drunk the kool aid and can't get out.